Re: Parg is not Marg

Grizzlie Antagonist (lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
On May 2, 10:35 am, Masculist <MASCUL...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:36 pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Apr 30, 9:49 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 30, 2:38 am, "MCP" <gf010w5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1177885537.662695.227030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Apr 29, 12:17 pm, "MCP" <gf010w5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"pandora" <pand...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:pan.2007.04.29.19.04.49.289839@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:19:07 -0700, Hyerdahl wrote:

Very true. But Annie had men from time to time, and she knew how to
use
her gun, which seems to me a very nice combination. :-)

Indeed. You might want to take a look at this site. It's very
interesting.

http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/oakl-ann.htm

I see yourtalking toyouself again, Parg...are you off your meds?

It's an easy accusation to make, but Parg (Hyerdahl) is not Marg. The
personalities are too different.

Parg/Hyerdahl is 58 years old, though she's often mistaken for a much
older woman. She has the personality of a much older woman.

Parg is like, "Heh heh, sonny. So yer hot fer mah body, are ye?
Well, I got me shotgun here for young whippersnappers like you."

About Marg, I know less. She's probably about the same chronological
age as Parg. But she's kind of like a feminist version of Blance
DuBois. Tennessee Williams's character from "A Streetcar Named
Desire" is a whore who genuinely and sadly regards herself as a lady.
A female high school drama teacher of mine said about Blanche, "Her
head doesn't know what her *** is doing".

Marg is like that. She has an ugly philosophy (feminism) and she
associates with people in a newsgroup that she considers distasteful.
Yet somehow she thinks that she can hold an ugly philosophy and
associate with distasteful people without being ugly and distasteful
herself. Her personal motto is something to the effect of, "Don't you
see that I'm above all this?"

Don't be too hard on Marg. She has always depended on the kindness of
strangers.

As far as i'm concerned they are both feminist nappy-headed ho's!

Right on MCP, that they are.

I think GA is missing something here. For one thing those girls being
here is VERY suspicious.

Nothing suspicious about it whatsoever.

They are feminist nappy-headed ho's with little or no self-esteem and
demonstrate it by repeatedly making themselves visible to an audience
that is bound to be hostile towards them -- again, not just once in a
while for a change of pace but continuously.

They are starving women who gobble laxatives. There are a number of
people in the world like that. And not are there a number of people
in the world like that -- there are also a number of women in the
world like that.

I mean why would feminist ho's hang around
men that in any other time would have thought nothing of killing
them.

For the reason that I mentioned above.

And I don't think that Sobolewski ever would have thought of killing
Parg/Hyerdahl or Marg/Pandora in any era.

I think that even in the Stone Age, he would have tried to use reason
to harangue her to distraction.

I think that even as they huddled in loincloths around the small
campfire that would be the fragile spark that kept at bay the wild
predatory animals that surrounded them, Sobolewski would have tried to
convince his female opponents of the innate virtues and inevitable
triumph of the Republican Party.

Poor Sobo, he hooked his wagon to a dead feminist star.

Yes, I suppose.

They are the most obnoxious and cruel oppressors of men in
history...going all the way back to Eve.

While there are a number of influential men and women in the world
that would fit that description, Mange and Puke are not among them.

They are utterly powerless and faintly conscious of their
powerlessness and extremely frustrated about it. That comes out in
their dialogue.

It might be a women's world, but neither of them have the ability to
live up even to the lowered standards of fitness and accountability
that are required of them in it.

Their lives are not rich, even in a world that caters to them.

Excellent diagnosis of Marg and Parg GA!

Thanks.

On top of that I have noticed the mail program that Marg is using is
doing the same thing Hyerho's program does, and that is eat and chop
up the oppositions words. Coincidence? I think not.

Smitty

And images that contain a sinister resemblance to them can be seen in
photographs of the grassy knoll.

What is it with you and conspiracy theories? Was Chief Justice Warren
your dad or something?

Loosen up, conspiracy theroies are fun!

Smitty-

Yes, many of them are. And while I have disdain for them (as a
general rule) as an explanation of history, I acknowledge that they
are "fun" or they can be fun. Maybe there's even a useful populist
component to conspiracy theories, as a whole. Maybe it's just as well
that we are not in the habit of trusting everything that "they" (the
ubiqutious "they") tell us.

But I regard JFK conspiracy theory as destructive. You claim to be an
anti-Marxist. JFK conspiracy theory is mostly a product of left-
wingers and Commie-sympathizing fellow-travelers who use the blood
libel of political patricide to make war upon the Right.

There are individual exceptions to that generalization, but as a
generalization, it's entirely accurate. That's what JFK conspiracy
theory is in the main; it's leftist-inspired blood libel.

Your reference to Justice Warren is interesting. Here was a man who,
during the Fifties, stood front and center on behalf of the liberties
of leftists. Somehow, the Left ended up eating their own in his case
-- because NOW the Left regards him as The Dark Enemy who helped cover
up the truth behind the patricide of a designated liberal saint.

Other conspiracy theories are more fun. It's fun to think about alien
bodies resting on ice at Roswell, though the idea is completely
loony. It's fun to think about a series of faked moon landings -- the
issue on which Stephen Morgan and Andre Lieven so vociferously
disagree.

Well, I would disagree with that notion of " fun ", and for reasons that
are not just very good, are not just factual, but that speak to the
issues and views discussed here.

Just as once you strip away the veneers of feminism, you find
anti-factual hate of reality, the exact same is true about Moon
Hoaxer conspiracy loons ( Ditto the 9/11 goons, and all the rest).
In both cases, the real world ( Where men and women are different and
not interchangable, and where hundreds of thousands of real engineers
got 12 men to the Moon, and where sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. )
is *denied* by the lunatics, be they literal lunatics, or sex
based ones ( I'll further tie the two issues together by reminding
you all that women's cycles are often linked to the Moon... <g> ).

Now, I will say that actual based on facts historical What Ifs
are fun. There are a lot of very well written ( and researched )
novels, series, and collections of essays that play the " what
if this part of history were changed, what might happen from it ".
Many, among those written by Harry Turtledove, are very good, and
are very interesting about what some what at the time seemed like
small choices or small events can have larger reprecussions later
on.

On the Moon landings, given the massive mountains of facts that
show that it was all real, we come to the same point as we place
Feminists rightly here. That their claims, being so extraordinary,
require extraordinary PROOF.

Neither Feminists nor Moon Hoaxers are capable of offering ANY
real proofs at all, thus they are both.... fact and reality hating
KOOKS.

I have no real familiarity with the photographic/logistical issues.
My common sense tells me that the moon landings couldn't have been
faked. They just couldn't have been. How could something like that
have been faked and how many people would have needed to cooperate to
accomplish it and how could they all have remained silent and how many
secrets remain secret in Washington anyway?

Thats just the start of it, you also have to get the arch rivals of
the USA of 1961-75, the fUSSR, to NOT blow the whistle on the fakery.

Next to that, asking a head of NOW to state that Feminism is Evil
is nothing by comparison.

Go read the great stuff on badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html .

And yet, in the year 2007, why aren't flights to the moon standard
tourist fare -- at least for the rich and famous if not for the
average vacationer?

Thats a great question; Because, after the actual purpose of Apollo,
in geopolitical terms was done ( Beating Commies to the Moon ), the
interest among the US public dropped away, and Congresscritters
don't legislate billions $$$ to programs that the voters have shown that
they don't care that much about.

Plus, Apollo was very lucky. There were several times when things
could have gobe Very Badly, worse than Apollo 13. Manned spaceflight
was, is, and will stay for a while yet, cutting/bleeding edge
technology. Sitting on a thousand tons of burning rocket fuel, or
flying through 4000 F degree plasma at over 20,000 KPH can be very
hard on our warm, pink bags of mostly water.

And why all these fatal accidents involving space
shuttles a few hundred miles above earth, and yet flights to the moon
240,000 miles away proceed as scheduled without any fatalities?

Do you remember Apollo 13 ? The oxygen tank explosion aboard the
Service Module happened while the craft was some 321,860 km away
from Earth ?

But, I do understand what is at the heart of your question, which is,
why do events well out in space not kill crews and why do events
close to Earth kill them ?

There are several parts in reply to that. One, things that happen
in a cruise mode, where the environment around the spacecraft is
fairly constant, allow *time* to figure out problems and ways to
work around them. Events during boost phase ( Consider that the
Shuttle goes from a standing start to orbital speed, 28,000 KPH,
in *under nine minutes*. ) and re-entry are such that you do not
have time to figure them out, unless you are a computer working
in millisecond response times, and that at such times, there is
no way to hold and cruise relatively safely until you not only do
figure out the problem, but a solution, as well.

Plus, trying to create new booster seals, or patches to major
portions of thermal protection systems ,while in flight is flat
out as impossible as trying to hang a new GE turbofan jet engine
on a 747 while it is in flight. Flying carries risk. We look
at airline flight as routine, but it took 70 years of technological
progress to make that possible. And yet, planes still crash, and far
more people die on them than ever died at all levels of human
spaceflight. That number is somewhat arguable, depending on if
you wish to count deaths atop an unfuelled rocket sitting on a
pad - Apollo 1 in 1967. If you stick with people between booster
igition, and landing, one gets four fatal events, with 18 dead
fliers among them. Over a time of 46 years. Thats well under one
dead astronaut/cosmonaut a year.

I'll add that our spaceflight experience base is so small that
trying to apply statsitical analysis procedures to it cannot work,
because the flight rates and totals are far too small.

Now, consider that humanity's total exerience with sub orbital hypersonic
controlled flight ( Several X-15 flights - not all X-15 flights went
for all out speed - and around 115 Shuttle flights ) can be counted
in well under 100 *hours*. Imagine if humanity's total experience
with cruising jet flight was also only 100 hours. We would still be
headed for vacations on DC-3s...

I loved the vision for humanity in 2001, too. I got my dad to take
me to it three times the year it came out. But, it was but one vision,
and it turns out that the sheer grunt and creative work to make it
possible is way, way, *way* harder than it looked in those heady
days of great deeds.

I'll also remind all and sundry that the Antarctic mania of the
early 20th Century ( Amundsen, Scott's brave death ) came to an end,
until, a half century later, with technologies and resources that
those pioneers could scarcely have imagined, humanity came back...
to work and to stay.

Space is harder than polar regions of Earth. The South Pole still
has gravity and air. And, you don't have to accelerate to 28,000
KPH in order to get there ( Never mind slow back from that speed
to go home. ).

I know that it's "crazy" to think that the moon landings could have
been faked -- and yet, sometimes I wonder...

Don't, be better informed instead.

Read Andrew Chaikin's fine book "A Man On The Moon" ( Holy ***, I
just looked at amazon about it, and I find that the original
hardcover is flat out unavailable, and a three volume slipcased
hardcover edition, which I also have one copy of, is going for $155 ! ),
which can be had in trade paper from amazon for $12.24.

Then, get yourself the wonderful 1998 HBO miniseries, that was
done from Chaikin's book, and that was also a Ron Howard &
Ton Hanks project ( Hanks intros all 12 parts ), called
From The Earth To The Moon. The Signature Edition of the
miniseries, 5 DVDs, can be had from DeepDiscount for a mere
$23.78, free shipping included.

For the technological side of the Moon Rocket program, Saturn,
I cannot highly enough recommend "Stages To Saturn", also in
trade paper from amazon for $26.37. Roger E. Billstein is the
author of that seminal work.

Each purchase is highly recommended. Knowledge should always
beat out ignorance and superstitions.

Andre

.